'Proceed Of Crime In Crores, Can't Claim Parity With Co-Accused Siddique Kappan': Allahabad HC Denies Bail To PFI Leader In PMLA Case

The Allahabad High Court on Monday, while denying bail to alleged Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Abdul Razaq Peediyakkal in the PMLA Case, observed that he can't claim parity with co-accused Siddique Kappan as Kappan is facing the allegation that Rs.5,000/- were transferred in the Bank account of co-accused Atikur Rahman, whereas in the instant case against Abdul, the proceed of crime is in crores.

"So far as claim of parity with co-accused Sidhique Kappan is concerned, the role assigned to Sidhique Kappan is in respect of hatching a criminal conspiracy with K.A. Rauf Sherif. Except for the allegation that Rs.5,000/- were transferred in the Bank account of coaccused Atikur Rahman, there is no other transaction either in the Bank account of Sidhique Kappan or in the Bank account of the coaccused whereas the role of the present applicant is altogether different from that of co-accused," the bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed.

It may be recalled that while granting bail to Kappan in connection with a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case in December 2022, the Allahabad High Court had taken note of the fact regarding this very allegation.

Read more about Allahabad High Court's order here: Kappan Bail In PMLA Case| "No Other Transaction Alleged Except For ₹5K Received In Bank Account Of Co-Accused": Allahabad HC

The case against Abdul

As per the case of ED, during the PMLA investigation against PFI, it came to light that more than Rs.100 Crore have been deposited in the accounts of PFI and its related entities over the years through hawala/ underground channels and through remittances sent to the accounts of members/ activists/office bearers of PFI/CFI and other related organizations.

Initially, the active participation of five accused persons came to notice through reliable pieces of evidence and materials who are: K.A. Rauf Sherif, Atikur Rehman, Masud Ahmed, Sidique Kappan, and Mohd. Alam.

However, in further investigation, the name of the present applicant (Abdul Razaq Peediyakkal) came to the notice, therefore, in the supplementary complaint, the applicant was also made the accused stating that he is a PFI member based in Kerala and Abu Dhabi and is involved in the illegal act of collecting and laundering funds for radical activities of PFI.

The ED has also alleged that Peediyakkal was the largest shareholder of the Munnar Villa Vista Project (MVVP), which was set up allegedly with the motive to launder money collected from abroad and in India.

He was arrested on March 2022 and booked under Sections 3, 4 & 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Seeking bail in the case, he moved to the High Court arguing that the case against him is not made out.

It was also submitted that the main conspirator in terms of the complaint of the ED, namely, K.A. Rauf Sherif was enlarged on bail by the Special Court for PMLA Cases under the PMLA in Feb 2021. Further, it was also argued that since co-accused Sidhique Kappan has been enlarged on bail, therefore, the present application may also be enlarged on bail on the basis of principles of parity.

Lastly, it was strongly argued that since the applicant was not named or not prosecuted for the predicate offence, his prosecution for money laundering won't be proper.

On the other hand, the Counsel for ED Kuldeep Srivastava, while stressing the role of Abdul in the instant case argued that allegations against him are serious and if he is released on bail, he may abscond or may influence the trial proceedings as the trial is pending consideration before the trial court where the charges have been framed.

Court's observations

Taking into account these submissions, the Court, at the outset rejected the argument of the applicant that his prosecution for money laundering was illegal as he was not named or not prosecuted for the predicate offence.

"It is clear that a person may not be involved in original criminal activity that had resulted in the generation of proceed of crime but he can join the main accused either as abettor or conspirator for committing the offence of money laundering by helping him in laundering the proceed of crime," the Court remarked as it referred to Bombay High Court's ruling in the case of Babulal Verma and Another Vs. Enforcement Directorate and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 392

Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question, the Court observed that the bail application also did not qualify the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA inasmuch as at this stage it cannot be observed that the present applicant has not committed the offence for which the complaint has been filed against him.

"The proceed of crime is also in crores. The applicant is based at Abu Dhabi. The factum of guilt can be proved or disproved before the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the E.D. has informed that the trial in the present case is going on with good pace and the same may likely be concluded very soon, therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant...," the Court observed.

Consequently, rejecting the bail plea of Abdul, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial with an expedition, preferably within a period of six months by fixing a short date.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Pranav Agarwal

Counsel for Opposite Party: Kuldeep Srivastava, Shiv P. Shukla

Case title - Abdul Razak Peediyakkal vs. Union Of India Enforcement Directorate Thru.Assitant Director [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.7719 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 58

Click Here To Read/Download Order